Aliens from space (split from Time to talk about UFO's or now as the military calls them UAP's?)

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I'm not sure what is going on but UFO of UAP sightings have jumped and cell phones are catching them! This video is a news broadcast of a recent sighting from an Airliner over NYC. The video is quite clear and appears to show an extraordinary object in flight near the airliner... a safety hazard if nothing else!

 

What is extraordinary about it? 

The talking head claims it was flying fast, but there’s no analysis given, and AFAICT no way to validly conclude this. 

We don’t know how big it is, and so we don’t know how far away it is. The plane is moving (as TheVat points out) so for all we know this was basically stationary with respect to the ground, and the plane flew past at several hundred kph.

Perhaps this was a Boeing and something fell off the front. Can we discount this possibility?

Same problem as with basically all videos that get posted - there’s no way to get any useful information from them, thus they remain unidentified.

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

This one doesn't look like a typical drone to me, its cylindrical shape is odd for a drone

So not like this, if it were in the foreground and blurred a little, and at lower resolution?

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

What did you think of the second video? My own take on it... I just can't get past the possibility its a mylar balloon but most people say it appears to maneuver and that would discount the balloon idea. 

What maneuvers?

Joe Rogan even points out that the plane is moving. 

As for the shape, wind will do that, and phone cameras use a rolling shutter which distorts objects moving with respect to the camera.

 

https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-rolling-stutter/

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Perhaps this was a Boeing and something fell off the front.

😀

1 hour ago, swansont said:

As for the shape, wind will do that, and phone cameras use a rolling shutter which distorts objects moving with respect to the camera.

Yep, global shutter is still pretty high-end for CMOS.  Generally, phones have moved away from CCD (which do have global shutter) toward CMOS due to its lower cost and other technical aspects like direct pixel access.  Generally phone cameras have a lot of distortion because of both CMOS rolling shutter and the choice of wide-angle lenses which leads to barrel distortion.  And also pincushion distortion if a zoom is used.  

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What is extraordinary about it? 

The talking head claims it was flying fast, but there’s no analysis given, and AFAICT no way to validly conclude this. 

We don’t know how big it is, and so we don’t know how far away it is. The plane is moving (as TheVat points out) so for all we know this was basically stationary with respect to the ground, and the plane flew past at several hundred kph.

Perhaps this was a Boeing and something fell off the front. Can we discount this possibility?

Same problem as with basically all videos that get posted - there’s no way to get any useful information from them, thus they remain unidentified.

So not like this, if it were in the foreground and blurred a little, and at lower resolution?

What maneuvers?

Joe Rogan even points out that the plane is moving. 

As for the shape, wind will do that, and phone cameras use a rolling shutter which distorts objects moving with respect to the camera.

 

https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-rolling-stutter/

Very good points, I doubt very seriously we will get a definitive explanation here from videos of unknown providence but it is all we have to work with. 

I have to admit that the second one does look an awful lot like a mylar balloon, the first one is probably a drone, ( the idea of drones threatening aircraft is scarier than aliens to me) but this is not the point.

We will have to look at a lot of frogs to see a prince and just maybe there is no prince, knowing something is a frog is as useful as not being able to explain it.  

The military will not share its files with anyone, scientist or not, everything we regular people do is dismissed out of hand due to unknown providence. We have no idea what if anything the military has or knows but we do know they lie their asses off out of hand, probably a habit from the cold war.

How are we supposed to investigate a report if it is rejected out of hand because a scientist didn't see it while using instruments that conform to scientific rigor? 

Its very frustrating to see all the reports and know that no matter what they will be dismissed due to not knowing what were are looking at which is the very question we are trying to answer. 

This is important because there are reports, pics, videos of inexplicable things that have not been explained adequately but were dismissed due to what is basically "unknown providence" age or both. How does not knowing what something is negate trying to figure it out? 

Could a discussion even be possible under the current requirements of scientific rigor? I think the assumption that they cannot be real is interfering with any real investigation and this leaves it all to crazy people on you tube to expound on the reports and bla bla bla, crazy stuff, look at the pic, bla bla bla, more crazy, while all but ignoring the meat of the report... ie someone saw something, they filmed it, then the media gets hold of it and a circus results. 

This will do nothing but harden the idea that all UFOs are just insanity incarnate. 

I suggest that we try to critique the actual sighting, at least initially, independent of what Joe Rogan says or some other person who's career depends on likes on their channel. 

Are these two reports the end all be all or even the current best? No they were just two that came up recently, a deep dive would require considerable effort culling through the media circus surrounding this current situation. 

There is a lot of shady BS going on around this, I have to admit that while I do not like it much some of the the people who are involved in this have an agenda and that agenda is chaos not understanding.  As an example Skinwalker Ranch is a con, a grift, nothing more than a source of chaos for Bigelow Aerospace and conning the gov out of millions of dollars. I'd post a video of that report but its just a youtube video. 

The grifters having such a strong interest in this is driving me away from et as a explanation, seriously I have been wrestling with this, I think the people behind atip are grifters.  

A more troubling report that is or was dismissed involved a B47 bomber and a several page long report.. I posted it here but the report was from too long ago to excite anyone evidently and of course the original info is in the possession of the military and they aren't talking.

I honestly feel like there is something going on here that needs to be monitored at the very least. It looks like technology, the real question is who's is it, that is what needs to be answered, with all the obfuscation going on around this thing by the military, congress, and even science... it honestly makes me wonder if something extraordinary is going on... I just can't say what. 

I'll say this, when I post a report here it is not an attempt at a gotcha, not a hey look at this hahaha. If I see something that makes me go Hmmm, I want others I respect to tell me what they see, so I post it. 

Unless new info cames in I think the first one is most probably a drone, the second one... I'm not so sure about but unless new info comes in, I think that one is iffy, but probably a balloon. Other takes on this are welcome! 

There are a couple more I want to discuss but I'll have to either edit them out of a video or post the entire video and post the time stamp. 

Ah hates auto correct! 

[swansont]

16 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

How are we supposed to investigate a report if it is rejected out of hand because a scientist didn't see it while using instruments that conform to scientific rigor? 

What is there to investigate if there isn’t any rigor?

 

16 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Its very frustrating to see all the reports and know that no matter what they will be dismissed due to not knowing what were are looking at which is the very question we are trying to answer. 

It’s not like these phenomena are being held to a different standard that’s present in science. The frustration, apparently, is being held to the same standard.

16 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

This is important because there are reports, pics, videos of inexplicable things that have not been explained adequately but were dismissed due to what is basically "unknown providence" age or both. How does not knowing what something is negate trying to figure it out? 

If the necessary information isn’t there, it isn’t there. It would be like LIGO or CERN (or any lab result) getting a signal but something isn’t calibrated (and can’t be retroactively calibrated). Too bad, but the data are worthless.

16 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Could a discussion even be possible under the current requirements of scientific rigor? I think the assumption that they cannot be real is interfering with any real investigation

You can assume there is a phenomenon to be investigated, but you can’t just assume a given observation is an alien. 

Relying on random observations is unlikely to ever give rigorous data. What you can do is set up coordinated, rigorous investigation, just like amateur scientists do in other fields. e.g. instead of one, you have multiple cameras at known locations, so you can triangulate positions and get speeds.

But if anybody is doing this, we haven’t been made aware of it. 

16 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

and this leaves it all to crazy people on you tube to expound on the reports and bla bla bla, crazy stuff, look at the pic, bla bla bla, more crazy, while all but ignoring the meat of the report... ie someone saw something, they filmed it, then the media gets hold of it and a circus results. 

Because that’s all there is under these circumstances 

[Moontanman]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

What is there to investigate if there isn’t any rigor?

 

It’s not like these phenomena are being held to a different standard that’s present in science. The frustration, apparently, is being held to the same standard.

If the necessary information isn’t there, it isn’t there. It would be like LIGO or CERN (or any lab result) getting a signal but something isn’t calibrated (and can’t be retroactively calibrated). Too bad, but the data are worthless.

You can assume there is a phenomenon to be investigated, but you can’t just assume a given observation is an alien. 

Relying on random observations is unlikely to ever give rigorous data. What you can do is set up coordinated, rigorous investigation, just like amateur scientists do in other fields. e.g. instead of one, you have multiple cameras at known locations, so you can triangulate positions and get speeds.

But if anybody is doing this, we haven’t been made aware of it. 

Because that’s all there is under these circumstances 

Then people who want to know what is going on are never going to know because its a random event? And by the way, I do not claim them to be alien, I claim them to be unknown, I specifically said they look like technology, the question is who's tech is it.

I never assume aliens, if nothing else I do know the phenomena cannot be shown to be anything specific at this point.

Personally I have wondered since I was a kid if these things might be some sort of natural atmospheric phenomena we simply do not understand.

The only way we will ever know is for the phenomena to be studied, all we currently have are reports, pics, and videos from regular people... does that mean we should simply ignore those people's reports? Tell them they are nuts? Call them liars?

There are some really good well substantiated reports out there, do we ignore them because I scientist didn't manage to measure them with special equipment? If so then we will never know. 

One thing I believe to be relevant, simply saying a photo is irrelevant because a scientist didn't take it under controlled conditions is how science dies.   

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

The only way we will ever know is for the phenomena to be studied, all we currently have are reports, pics, and videos from regular people... does that mean we should simply ignore those people's reports?

I’ve mentioned what needs to be done. Anybody who’s serious about the subject needs to do that. If they lack the will to do so, oh well. The status quo will continue.

 

21 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Tell them they are nuts? Call them liars?

If they are claiming more than what the evidence shows, then they are mistaken. 

[Moontanman]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’ve mentioned what needs to be done. Anybody who’s serious about the subject needs to do that. If they lack the will to do so, oh well. The status quo will continue.

That is sad

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

If they are claiming more than what the evidence shows, then they are mistaken. 

All you have to do is make a report, no claims are necessary to labeled a nut. 

[TheVat]

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Relying on random observations is unlikely to ever give rigorous data. What you can do is set up coordinated, rigorous investigation, just like amateur scientists do in other fields. e.g. instead of one, you have multiple cameras at known locations, so you can triangulate positions and get speeds.

It is unfortunate that most observation stations have been set up like this one at Hooper, Colorado....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_Watchtower

So instead of attracting scientists who can set up proper recording arrays, it attracts the true believers (or tourists looking for something offbeat).  Or nuts, e.g.

Quote

Located below the platform, outside of the gift shop, Messoline created a "healing garden" where visitors leave objects to "hopefully receive some sort of healing." The area is a rock garden that she says celebrates "three vortexes that several psychics say are in her front yard." The vortexes are protected by "two large beings", people leave personal items "from photos and business cards to pens, keys, toys and even personal items of lost loved ones."

 

13 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Ah hates auto correct! 

Me too.  I figured "providence" was provenance.

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, TheVat said:

It is unfortunate that most observation stations have been set up like this one at Hooper, Colorado....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_Watchtower

So instead of attracting scientists who can set up proper recording arrays, it attracts the true believers (or tourists looking for something offbeat).  Or nuts, e.g.

A setup to separate fools from their money.

But there have been efforts such as SETI, so a coordinated scientific effort is possible. But that also means you’d potentially have to admit that you’ve found nothing after years of searching.

[ImplicitDemands]

Up to this date every single scientific development pertaining to R&D has been made widely accessible to the point that it has become very difficult for any one authority to maintain said authority without mutually assured destruction. Total global compromise is policy. This is why we can't have nice things.

This one technology, if it exists, we would need to find out a way to use it without using calculators, every-single input made has a digital signature. We need to seriously discuss the security of our technological apparatus.  

Edited April 26 by ImplicitDemands

[ImplicitDemands]

From what I understand they behave more like this:

 

[Moontanman]

I think it's interesting that different countries have different attitudes about this phenomenon. France seems to have the most progressive attitude with serious research being done via actual experts being employed by the government to investigate sightings. The USA seems to have to have the most repressive systems that appear to be geared toward ridiculing the sources to poison the well rather than investigation to find the truth... interesting how the same subject is treated by different schools of thought. 

Investigate the sources or ridicule the sources... which is scientific?  

[Eise]

Sorry to disappoint, but I recognised it immediately:

The speed is the speed of the plane. It was 'a close encounter of the daily kind'.

Blow it up in a cool place on a hot day (inside your home or in the shadow), bring it into the sunlight, until it lifts and let it go, and you will never see it again.

From this Swiss site. Costs 12 Swiss bucks. What a fuzz about a funny, but physically interesting toy. I once 'launched' one.

Ah, there is even a wikipedia article bout it:

Quote

A solar balloon is a balloon that gains buoyancy when the air inside is heated by solar radiation, usually with the help of black or dark balloon material. The heated air inside the solar balloon expands and has lower density than the surrounding air. As such, a solar balloon is similar to a hot air balloon. Usage of solar balloons is predominantly in the toy market, although it has been proposed that they be used in the investigation of planet Mars, and some solar balloons are large enough for human flight.

That was a fast +1, Moontanman.

Small correction: blow it up on a cool but sunny day.

Obviously there also much bigger ones...

 

Edited Monday at 03:13 PM by Eise

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

France seems to have the most progressive attitude with serious research being done via actual experts being employed by the government to investigate sightings

And what have they found?

[Moontanman]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

And what have they found?

https://cnes.fr/en/web/CNES-en/5866-geipan-uap-investigation-unit-opens-its-files.php

Quote

NOT ALL CASES EXPLAINED

However, some of the 1,600 reported sightings in GEIPAN’s files remain a mystery. These are what it calls “type D” aerospace phenomena, that is, they cannot be explained despite precise witness accounts and good-quality evidence recovered from the scene.
 

Classification of sightings. Crédits: CNES

In putting its full archives on line today, GEIPAN is hoping to focus the attention of the scientific community on these unexplained phenomena, which could conceal truly revolutionary scientific discoveries. And there is plenty of material to study, since GEIPAN’s archives amount to the equivalent of 100,000 A4 pages.

 

Edited Monday at 03:50 PM by Moontanman

[swansont]

1600 reports, and yet I don’t recall any of these being offered up in these discussions. I have to think they contain nothing conclusive. 

[Eise]

I just read some comments on the video. Seldom had more fun. Here a selection:

• This woman is a legend, first clear UFO footage in history
• Finally a clear picture of a ufo instead of the usual dark and blurry images (Eise: yup, therefore it was so easy to recognise)
• This is the best clearest footage of UFO I have ever seen.
• US Government: "Relax it's just a weather balloon." (Eise: no, it was't...)
• Literally the best footage of a “ufo” to date …bravo!! U guys deserve something as a news station SERIOUSLY!
• probably the best video/picture caught of a UFO ever lol
• 1. It wasn't fast, the aircraft was, that's why you see it zipping through the video. 2. It's a blade propelled object judging from its inclination, probably a drone. 3. The drone was operated by the government or related agency because even considering how dangerous this was for the airliner, no news about investigation had been announced.
• Why is everyone so scared to say what it really is?? (Eise: because it would shock your world view)
• That’s our own government. Stop
• Do you really think you caught it on your home camera and the government doesn’t know? They have been here for thousands of years.
• Cylinder Aka cigar shaped crafts are one of the most common UFOs. Legit sighting in my opinion. Great catch.. (Eise: obviously a real expert!)
• This is one of the best UFO footage in recent decades (Eise: his emoticons, sorry that they became so big...)
• Etc etc.

Naivety, conspiracy theories... There are however a few who notice that it looks to fly fast, but that it could be the speed of the plane. Some examples:

• The plane flying at 2 to 300 miles per hour, if you look closely, that object could have very well been stationary given the travel direction of the plane if you look at the land while it's flying and how the object seems to fly by at a high speed but could very well be almost sitting still.
• Black balloon with helium? It’s not moving, you are. (Eise: close, very close...)

And the price goes to:

 

[Moontanman]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

1600 reports, and yet I don’t recall any of these being offered up in these discussions. I have to think they contain nothing conclusive. 

So nothing conclusive means no value? Maybe in 20 years we'll have controlled fusion, we've only been pursuing this for 80 years or so and it's always just 20 years away but we continue to gather info hoping that eventually we will figure it out. Gathering accurate data about something potentially so important is never a useless endeavor. 

Ridiculing something because you just can't imagine how it could be possible is such a great way to figure something out. 

Edited Monday at 04:15 PM by Moontanman

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

So nothing conclusive means no value? Maybe in 20 years we'll have controlled fusion, we've only been pursuing this for 80 years or so and it's always just 20 years away but we continue to gather info hoping that eventually we will figure it out. Gathering accurate data about something potentially so important is never a useless endeavor. 

There isn’t going to be more information in those reports as time goes on, so I don’t see how this analogy is relevant. 

Research will move toward success if you improve the quality of the research, as I’ve pointed out numerous times.

12 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Ridiculing something because you just can't imagine how it could be possible is such a great way to figure something out. 

You keep harping on ridicule - and suggesting it’s systematic - without presenting evidence of it. Pointing out the poor quality of data and the nonscientific approach is not ridicule, it’s a statement of fact. True skepticism is part of science. 

[Moontanman]

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

There isn’t going to be more information in those reports as time goes on, so I don’t see how this analogy is relevant.

So there is no information to be gleaned from old studies of anything else?  

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

Research will move toward success if you improve the quality of the research, as I’ve pointed out numerous times.

And I agree yet this is not what science driven by the US gov is doing. France seems to be doing their best to improve their information by supporting the investigations. The US does its best to suppress information and investigation. The US has be shown to be guilty of outright lies and deception in its "scientific" investigations. 

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

You keep harping on ridicule - and suggesting it’s systematic - without presenting evidence of it.

And yet I have presented evidence of this ridicule, many times, Avi Loeb is currently experiencing this according to interviews he has done recently. His own colleges are engaging in this ridicule, the word crackpot is being thrown around. 

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

Pointing out the poor quality of data and the nonscientific approach is not ridicule, it’s a statement of fact. True skepticism is part of science. 

And yet the gov of France continues to do science while the US gov ridicules the source. Maybe the poor quality is due to the lack of rigor among the people who want the investigations to die. 

Edited Monday at 04:40 PM by Moontanman

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

And yet I have presented evidence of this ridicule, many times, Avi Loeb is currently experiencing this according to interviews he has done recently. His own colleges are engaging in this ridicule, the word crackpot is being thrown around. 

Anecdotes.

Avi Loeb is being “ridiculed” because in his most recent incident he made outlandish claims about something on the ocean floor being of interstellar origin and possibly alien. He used seismometer data that turned out to be from a truck driving on a nearby road and he didn’t bother to check with seismologists. Among other issues, apparently. Claiming something not supported by the evidence is poor science.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/truth-harvard-astronomer-alien-spherules/

Being criticized for doing poor science and overstepping - much like Pons and Flieschmann were criticized - is not evidence of a systematic plan to ridicule. Loeb is not a good example to try and use.

 

[Moontanman]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Anecdotes.

Avi Loeb is being “ridiculed” because in his most recent incident he made outlandish claims about something on the ocean floor being of interstellar origin and possibly alien. He used seismometer data that turned out to be from a truck driving on a nearby road and he didn’t bother to check with seismologists. Among other issues, apparently. Claiming something not supported by the evidence is poor science.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/truth-harvard-astronomer-alien-spherules/

Being criticized for doing poor science and overstepping - much like Pons and Flieschmann were criticized - is not evidence of a systematic plan to ridicule. Loeb is not a good example to try and use.

 

When the US Air Force hired Edward Condon to do the Condon Report, Condon Report Critique, he was quoted as saying "The real trick will be to give the impression of an impartial scientific study while knowing there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon"  

J.Allen Hynek, who the air force hired to study UFOs, eventually quit Project Blue Book and basically went over to the "dark" side said his reason was the the Air Force wasn't interested in actually investigating anything and actually withheld important info to facilitate their debunking and all they wanted him to do was find something... anything... they could blame a sighting on no matter if it was accurate.    

Edited Monday at 05:38 PM by Moontanman

[Eise]

James Olivier had his 'Last Week Tonight' about UFOs. There is amongst others the footage of Edward Condon in it, saying exactly what @Moontanman cited.

And I completely agree with Swansont about Avi Loeb. His (Loeb, of course... ) first hypothesis always seems to be 'aliens!'. And then do everything, however ridiculous, to support this hypothesis. No, this is not the way doing science and the article Swansont links to is a perfect description of Loeb's problematic stance and way of investigating, unworthy of science. I think it is very bad, it undermines the reputation of science.

Edited Tuesday at 06:40 AM by Eise

[swansont]

One thing about what John Oliver said - “we don’t know what it is” is an answer, and whatever label you attach (UFO, UAP) saying it’s unidentified is an answer. There isn’t enough information to make an identification. 

And he notes that “a rigorous, evidence-based, data-driven scientific framework is essential” which is what I’ve been saying. This has to be treated on equal footing as any other bit of science. Conclusions have to be derived from the evidence. You need better data.

 

 

[exchemist]

19 hours ago, swansont said:

Anecdotes.

Avi Loeb is being “ridiculed” because in his most recent incident he made outlandish claims about something on the ocean floor being of interstellar origin and possibly alien. He used seismometer data that turned out to be from a truck driving on a nearby road and he didn’t bother to check with seismologists. Among other issues, apparently. Claiming something not supported by the evidence is poor science.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/truth-harvard-astronomer-alien-spherules/

Being criticized for doing poor science and overstepping - much like Pons and Flieschmann were criticized - is not evidence of a systematic plan to ridicule. Loeb is not a good example to try and use.

 

Yes, Loeb’s recent claims did indeed turn out to be a load of, well, spherules. 😆

Not surprising people start to wonder if he may have a personal agenda that is warping his judgement. Personally, I suspect Loeb has actually become a crackpot.